Helen is going to be leaving the Congress at the end of this term. But I want all of you to know, and I think most of you know this, Helen has been a tenacious advocate and fighter for the people not only of her district, but her State. Every time we have a hearing, and every time the Secretary of Agriculture comes before our committee, Helen Chenoweth is there fighting for the people of her dis

trict.

And I just want to say that because I think most of you know it, but Helen, you've done a great job in representing the people of this State, and particularly the people of your district, and we're going to miss you on the committee. And it's a pleasure to be in your area.

It's great to have Mike Simpson on the committee, but I don't think anybody can match Helen's voice and advocacy for the people of her area.

The CHAIRMAN. And I might say a very pleasant voice. Mr. Ose. Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am reminded that the last time I was Idaho was in the winter of 1976. It has been too long because this State is too pretty to be away from for that long. I'm pleased to be back.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moran.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It's a delight to be with you. This is my first visit to the State of Idaho and to Boise, and you do have a very beautiful State, at least what we saw of the sunset last night and as the sun rose this morning.

I, too, join my colleagues in expressing our interest in hearing what you have to say. I represent most of the State of Kansas geographically. And we're a wheat, cattle, corn producing district, State. The largest city in my district is about 40,000 people, very rural. And I'm interested to see if you have the same kind of things to say as my farmers and ranchers are telling me, in hopes that we can find some solutions to the problems that our producers face. And not only of keeping farmers on the farm, but allowing the next generations of sons and daughters to have that same opportunity to grow up in rural America.

And I, too, commended your two Members of Congress from Idaho. I don't think there is another delegation in Congress in which both Members, the entire delegation are members of the same committees, agriculture and resources. And both Mike and Helen have been strong advocates. Mike arrived after I did, Helen arrived before I did. But in both instances, they have been there on behalf of the kind of values that we share across rural America. And I'm delighted to be here with you today and to hear what you have to say in hopes that we can make a difference on your behalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walden.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a delight to be here in Boise. And I echo the comments of my col

leagues who have gone before about the great job that Mike Simpson and Helen Chenoweth-Hage have done representing those issues that are so critical to those of us that represent rural districts. Sometimes I feel like I'm more a part of the Idaho delegation instead of the Oregon, especially when it comes to some votes.

I would like to introduce two staff people who are here today, back here in the back is Troy Nichols, who works for Senator Gordon Smith. Troy, if you want to stand up. And he'll be coming to work for me as a field rep for the northern and central part of Oregon.

And Brian Hard in the back, who is my senior legislative assistant for agricultural issues. So if you've got issues, talk to him.

I grew up on a cherry orchard in Deschutes, OR, Mr. Chairman, and understood as a young kid what it was like to try and make a living in agriculture. I remember the only summer vacation we ever took in those 11 years when I was on that ranch was when the cherries froze out. And that was because my dad also managed a radio station. So even back in the early sixties, you had to have another job to be able to be in agriculture, it seemed like.

So I'm somewhat familiar, growing up in a farming region, growing up on a farm, what is faced, and it's an enormous problem we face on the farm and on the ranch. And I'm really looking forward to the testimony today, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you and our ranking member for holding these hearings throughout the country so we can hear firsthand from farmers and ranchers about what the problems are. But moreover, about their specific recommendations for what we need to do in Congress to solve those problems so we can have a healthy and vibrant farm economy in this country. It's essential to our security and to our future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hastings.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the committee for the courtesy they've shown me in allowing me to be here today to participate in this hearing. I, too, look forward to the testimony that's given.

I wanted to add my 2 cents worth also with Mike Simpson and Helen Chenoweth-Hage because just last month we had a hearing of the Committee on Resources in Pasco, dealing with water and dams and salmon. And I know that's of great interest to everybody here, because without water, obviously we haven't got an agriculture economy in this part of the country.

But I represent a very diverse area in central Washington. It runs from the Oregon border to the Canadian boarder and is very diverse. In fact, it's probably as diverse as any area in the country, with maybe the exception of the central valley of California. And one thing that in those areas-the diversity of crops-that they all have in common, however, that I hear over and over from my growers, and that's that we need more markets in the long term, I'm convinced. I'm sure we'll hear today the testimony that the more markets we have, the better off we'll be.

My growers have been telling me over and over, "Just give us a level playing field. If we have a level playing field, we'll compete with everybody." That's obviously a charge that we take very, very seriously. One of the big tests, as a matter of fact, will be coming up the end of this month when we vote on permanent normal trading relations with China. That will be a test to see the result that Congress has created to the problems that you have.

I look forward to your testimony. I will just point out one other thing when I mentioned, as diverse as we are, I need to put in a plug. Washington State leads the country in production of apples and pears and hops and sweet cherries and spearmint, dry teas, lentils, Concord and Niagara grapes, and asparagus. We also are huge players in wheat and potatoes. I know that's probably sensitive to Idahoans when I say potatoes, but I have to tell you a story.

I was back at a local supermarket back in Virginia and they were advertising Idaho potatoes. And I'm all in favor of Northwest products, so I went in to buy some and they were from Quincy, WA. That's all right. It's all from the Northwest; we all benefit by that. But there is a bit of pride in Washingtonians in how they grow their potatoes.

So once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the courtesy you've shown for allowing me to sit with you today.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS

I appreciate the opportunity to join the committee today for this discussion of Federal farm policy. This committee knows only too well the problems facing farmers and ranchers across the country, and things are certainly no better in my own district. In central Washington, agriculture isn't just a large part of our economy, it is the very lifeblood of our economy. When farmers do well in my district, everyone seems to do well-but when they are struggling, their struggle takes place right before our eyes. That's why the economic challenges facing our farmers have been felt so sharply by people both in and out of agriculture, and in every county in my district.

For those of you who have not yet had the opportunity to visit central Washington, we are one of the most productive and diverse agricultural areas in the country. Washington State leads the Nation in the production of a variety of crops such as apples, pears, hops, sweet cherries, spearmint, dry peas, lentils, Concord and Niagara grapes, and asparagus. In addition, we are major producers of wheat and potatoes. You might think that there would be little that such a diverse group of growers could agree on. However, there is one long-term solution that I hear about from the producers of all of these commodities-expanded markets.

I believe that the most important action the Federal Government can take is to open up new export markets for our farmers and farm communities. That is why I am strongly supportive of efforts to renew the President's fast track trade negotiating authority, and to approve permanent normal trade relations status for China. We have already concluded an agreement for China's entry into the World Trade Organization that will result in drastic cuts in their tariffs on our agricultural exports. This will result in an average reduction of 75 percent in China's tariffs on fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, China has already opened its market to Pacific Northwest wheat in a separate agreement reached last year.

We will continue to push for the reduction of foreign trade barriers, but we must also make sure that our producers have the tools they need to compete in these markets once the barriers are down. That's why Senator Murray and I joined in introducing bipartisan legislation to ensure Washington state agricultural producers can compete on a level playing field in foreign markets.

Our legislation, the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act, more than doubles the amount of funding available for the Market Access Program.

Specifically, the bill would authorize the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to spend up to $200 million on the Market Access Program, but not less than the current $90 million, to help small businesses, cooperatives and organizations that represent

U.S. agriculture producers promote their products overseas. Likewise, this legislation would also set a minimum of $35 million to be spent on the promotion of U.S. bulk commodities, such as wheat, overseas through the Foreign Market Development Program.

These programs aid in leveling the playing field by helping agricultural exporters in Washington and other states break into foreign markets by defraying the costs of promoting their products. The program funds such activities as consumer promotions, market research and technical assistance. Participants in the program are required to provide matching funds of up to 50 percent of the program costs.

Along with everyone here in this room today, I'm convinced that American farmers and their products are superior to those overseas. But right now, foreign countries spend far more than the U.S. each year promoting their products and directly subsidizing their agricultural exports. The Market Access Program gives our farmers the chance to compete on equal footing. USDA Under Secretary Gus Schumacher recently expressed the administration's support for this approach, and it already has over 30 House cosponsors. I look forward to working with the committee to try and move this legislation forward.

Once again, I would like to thank the chairman for the opportunity to be present today. I look forward to hearing the testimony, and to working to achieve improvements in the agricultural economy.

The CHAIRMAN. Very glad to have you, Mr. Hastings.

I will call our first panel of witnesses. And I will apologize to all the witnesses ahead of time if I happen to mispronounce your name or the city you are from.

I would also ask our witnesses, if they would, please, observe the lights to the extent possible, giving the members as much time as possible to get into an interchange. All of the testimony in its entirety and any additional testimony that you might be wishing to submit will certainly be accepted for the record.

Our first panel, Mr. Klaren Pete Koompin, a potato, wheat, canola producer from American Falls, ID. Mr. Perry Meuleman is a sugar beet and barley producer from Rupert, ID. John Payne is a wheat and barley producer from Waitsburg, WA. Mr. Sherman Reese is a wheat and barley producer from Echo, OR. Mr. Ritchey Toevs is a potato, sugar beet, wheat producer from Aberdeen, ID. We'll start as introduced and go down the line. And I would ask you to begin, please. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF KLAREN PETE KOOMPIN, POTATO, WHEAT, CANOLA PRODUCER, AMERICAN FALLS, ID

Mr. KOOMPIN. Start with me, Mr. Chairman. You did a fine job with the name. I couldn't produce it until I was 12, especially my first name. Dad rode on a tractor for a couple of days but he had to come up with a name in order to get me out of the hospital because they wouldn't release mother, they said. So the way it came up is he remembered the name of a guy he didn't like. So anyway, I'll get started here.

Mr. Chairman, members of the House Committee on Agriculture, again, thank you from Idaho and the Northwest for granting this audience on the 2002 farm bill. There are several issues which I believe need to be addressed in the 2002 farm bill. And I'm going to deviate just a second from my written statement with the chairman's permission. I would like to add a couple more thoughts after I finish reading the prepared statement. But hopefully I will still be well within the green light.

First and foremost, please, at the Government's earliest convenience, give me the Government definition of a family farm. For without the definition, I am at a severe disadvantage in the domes

tic and international markets. For in order for us, my brother and I who have a partnership, to stay in business, we must remain within the Government program. But if the Government uses gross dollars income to define a family farm as it's projecting to do or has some inclination there, then as a potato, wheat, and canola producer, we're out of the parameters as dictated by Washington. And you take 400 acres of potatoes itself will gross over $500,000. Now, if you were talking net income, well, I think then we could probably live with the $500,000. And basically it comes down to please, no more payment limitations.

It might be easier to define what a non-family farm is. And a definition might read, this is something I came up with Sunday: Any farm that is either owned, operated, or joint-ventured by a publicly traded or multinational person or company. Very simple and maybe will solve somewhat of the stigma of what a family farm is. Let's define what it isn't.

Multi-peril insurance, which I'm going to call full-coverage, allcrop, production-only insurance, will work in the United States if it is required for all producers to take and is administered by the FSA offices. As long as actual production is required every year, and is used to figure a historical average, and with the premium adjusted accordingly, then the 5- out of 10-year disasters that some farms experience will probably come to a stop. But we do believe that the Government should provide a farmer caught in these areas an option to CRP this ground or retrain him in some other vocation.

You may wonder why we're not in favor of revenue insurance. I believe that any type of revenue insurance, whether Government sponsored or privately sponsored, is ripe for fraud. And furthermore, there are plenty of tools available currently for us to market our crops, including but not limited to forward contracts, futures, options, LDPs, and Government guaranteed payments.

No. 3, can the Government get out of farming? Unfortunately, no. The world free market is somewhat like trying to define the family farm. It may look good on paper, but very seldom works in reality. I have come somewhat full circle on this, starting with Jamie Whitten back in the late 1970's, from Mississippi, to thinking he was one way too far and going the other way, where we should get completely out. And I guess I'm somewhere in the middle and maybe leaning toward him.

I believe the USDA needs to get more involved in research funding, i.e., new uses for existing crops, new crops, enhanced environmental production possibilities, the carbon credits and so forth that people are talking about. We need international market access. And probably one of the most important, all phases of transportation efficiencies, both domestic and international need to be addressed by the USDA, for that's where our markets do lie.

With the support of our basic commodities, wheat, feed grain, soybeans, cotton, and rice, these things, if done by the USDA, then will ensure that agriculture will have a dynamic and prosperous future, an industry that I still believe would make Thomas Jefferson proud, and an industry that still is the foundation and driving force of all others, and one I hope my children choose. For agriculture is too big of a consumer in the American economy to be left unat